Hi Ham and Tuukka, Ham, I think you are trying to make a subtle point that may have more meaning to you than to others. It may just boil down to what these words mean to you. As I understand it, Reality composes everything, even the unreal. From your ontology I see Essence as not everything, since we can negate it. By my semantic calculations, therefore, I would say that Essence is part of Reality. But, you may be saying something different altogether.
Mark On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings, Tuukka -- > > Welcome to the forum. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:04 PM, "Tuukka Virtaperko" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ham: >> >> You seem to be missing a point that's related to intensions and >> extensions. Let's take the concept of squares as an example. The intension >> of this object is the definition of squares, ie. >> "all numbers that equal an integer multiplied by itself". The >> extension of this object is "1,4,9,16,25..." >> >> You seem to be attempting to use the concept of "reality" as a >> reference to the extension of "reality". What is the intension of >> this concept? >> >> Perhaps more poetically put: If reality is not a term at all, how can you >> use it as a term? > > I have no "hidden agenda". Reality is a valid term, but as I have often > pointed out it, it is defined differently by empiricists and philosophers, > respectively. Accordingly, I make a distinction between "existential > reality" and "ultimate reality". The former defines the plualistic universe > and its finite components as experienced, the latter is the uncreated source > or ground of all that is. > > However, I don't get your point because I don't see a relation between > "intention" and "extension". Although the phrase "by extension" suggests > that a given concept can apply to more than one event or process, you didn't > use that phrase. Instead you tried to relate two words that don't even > share a common prefix. My point to Mark was that intent always implies an > "intender" or subjective agent with a goal or purpose. Thus, when you say > "the intention of this object", what you really mean is: it is YOUR > intention to use this object as an example that relates the two words. > > Your example doesn't work for me. But if, indeed, I am "missing something" > here, I'm sure that Mark or somebody else will hasten to explain what it is. > > Nice to meet you, Tuukka, and thanks for your interest, > Ham > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
